Unofficial Poll- What comes first, the chicken, or the egg?

[BigBlueHen53]

So can you tell me what existing evidence there is? In fact, is there evidence that supports the creationism theory? I would love to read up on any scientific studies, reports, of the matter to understand it better if you know of any. You can send them in a PM if you like?

In my opinion the evidence is everywhere but I know what you are saying. It won't be today, alas, as I am busy and need to do a little digging, but I will respond. This thread is fun!

 

[SBFChickenGirl]

In my opinion the evidence is everywhere but I know what you are saying. It won't be today, alas, as I am busy and need to do a little digging, but I will respond. This thread is fun!

I agree!

 

[Cluckcluck1215]

As @LittleBrownie said, @ChocolateMouse has by far the most scientifically accurate and understandable explanation.
Its factual, backed up by research and links they have supplied. Unlike the idea that God simply created chickens and planted them here. Not to bash any religons, but that sounds like magic from Harry Potter.
I think the egg most definitely came first, and what hatched was a mutation of feathered dinosaurs and it kept breeding and reproducing, and eventually it evolved into the Red Jungle Fowl, and then the common chicken we know today.

 

[RubelliteRose]

For me personally, the chicken came first - buying eggs and hatching them in an incubator was way too intimidating
Evolutionarily, it depends upon your definition of the egg. Eggs in general came first, but I think a chicken egg must be laid by a chicken. The egg that hatched the first chicken may have contained a chicken, but it was not a "chicken egg" because the parent was not a chicken. So the chicken came first.

 

[BigBlueHen53]

So can you tell me what existing evidence there is? In fact, is there evidence that supports the creationism theory? I would love to read up on any scientific studies, reports, of the matter to understand it better if you know of any. You can send them in a PM if you like?

Whew, I knew it was going to be a long day. The scientific research I am going to be referencing is about radiohalos in granite. Like I said, I have to do a little digging to find the references but I think you'll find it interesting. Has nothing to do with chickens or eggs, though, lol! Will try to get it here tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Edit: deleted false start.

 

[Cluckcluck1215]

For me personally, the chicken came first - buying eggs and hatching them in an incubator was way too intimidating
Evolutionarily, it depends upon your definition of the egg. Eggs in general came first, but I think a chicken egg must be laid by a chicken. The egg that hatched the first chicken may have contained a chicken, but it was not a "chicken egg" because the parent was not a chicken. So the chicken came first.

I suppose your argument doesn't make since.
If the parent wasn't a true chicken, then how did the chicken come first? Is there any facts or scientific research to back this theory up? I'm genuinely curious about this.

 

[ChocolateMouse]

I suppose your argument doesn't make since.
If the parent wasn't a true chicken, then how did the chicken come first? Is there any facts or scientific research to back this theory up? I'm genuinely curious about this.

This is a semantic definition of what is a "Chicken Egg" as they state that eggs, in general came first but, perhaps, CHICKEN eggs did not.

I believe in this case they are correct. *AN* egg made a chicken at one point, but the egg itself was NOT a "chicken" egg. Much like an egg that PRODUCES an olive egger often is not olive colored nor would you say "this is an olive egger egg" even if it contains a potential olive egger chicken.

However you MAY be able to say that the chicken HATCHING EGG came first, as hatching eggs potentially containing olive eggers are often sold as "olive egger hatching eggs", despite they themselves not being olive egger eggs.

That would be suitable with our current language structure and term definitions accepted by the majority of the bird keeping community.

 

[BigBlueHen53]

Well, hmm.... if we are going to talk about semantics (she said, pulling up a chair and pouring herself another cup of ginger tea)... everyone's personal experience might be different. I mean, for ME the chicken came first. I bought started pullets. And how happy I was that day when the first egg appeared! Another person might buy hatching eggs. And three nail-biting weeks later, Eureka! A chicken appears! So in their experience, the egg came first. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think we all assume the question is,
in the course of the history of this planet, what came first, an egg containing a chicken embryo, or a live chicken?
Is that essentially correct?

 

[Cluckcluck1215]

This is a semantic definition of what is a "Chicken Egg" as they state that eggs, in general came first but, perhaps, CHICKEN eggs did not.

I believe in this case they are correct. *AN* egg made a chicken at one point, but the egg itself was NOT a "chicken" egg. Much like an egg that PRODUCES an olive egger often is not olive colored nor would you say "this is an olive egger egg" even if it contains a potential olive egger chicken.

However you MAY be able to say that the chicken HATCHING EGG came first, as hatching eggs potentially containing olive eggers are often sold as "olive egger hatching eggs", despite they themselves not being olive egger eggs.

That would be suitable with our current language structure and term definitions accepted by the majority of the bird keeping community.

Ah, I understand what they mean now. I am very tired, so I apologize if was a stupid question, lol. I do appreciate your clarification.

 

[MrFluffyandGirls]

There's a saying, I may get it wrong, that goes, when one has eliminated every possibility, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I believe that has been attributed to Sherlock Holmes. Some things cannot be proven by empirical evidence, because certain events, such as the origins of our planet and the origins of species, cannot be replicated. We can only interpret the existing evidence. But if the observers begin with a preconceived notion that they refuse to believe in a Divine Intelligence, a Self-Existent Creator, in spite of overwhelming evidence pointing to that conclusion, then can they really consider themselves impartial judges?

Whoa...Mind blown again! Putting boots back on.
* This chicken and egg thing can bring out some enlightening & interesting views.